Is the Urantia Book holy?

"Holy" is a term with many meanings, yet it is often equated with sanctimonious. I don't intend to use that common meaning in this thread. Instead, I'd like to talk about the term holy as a spiritual quality. Here's a definition of holiness from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Unapproachableness; the state of separation from, and elevation above, things common, profane, or sensual, first in a physical and external, and later in a spiritual, sense; moral purity and perfection incapable of sin and wrong.

All things become "holy" that are excluded from common or profane use ("ḥol"; I Sam. xxi. 5) by being connected with the worship of God: (1) The places in which God is supposed to dwell or where He appeared (Ex. iii. 5; Josh. v. 15; Deut. xxiii. 15; II Chron. viii. 11); hence, every sanctuary ("miḳdash," Ex. xxv. 8, or "ḳodesh," Ex. xxviii. 29; Ezek. xlii. 20), and every part of the sanctuary, and every vessel used therein (Ex. xxvi. 33; I Sam. xxi. 6; Ezek. xlii. 13; Num. iii. 31). Such a place with its site was marked off as holy (Ex. xix. 23; Ezek. xlv. 1). The hill of the Temple (Isa. xi. 9 and elsewhere) became "the holy hill"; Jerusalem, "the holy city" (Ps. xlvi. 5; Zeph. iii. 11; Isa. xlviii. 2); and Palestine, "the holy land" (Zech. ii. 16; comp. Hosea ix. 3-4). God's heavenly habitation, "the seat of His holiness," is holy, because of His unapproachable (fiery) majesty (Micah i. 2; Hab. ii. 20; and elsewhere); so, likewise, is "the throne of His holiness" (Ps. xlvii. 9; comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14: "the fiery mountain of the [heathen] gods").

(2) All the things consecrated or brought as sacrifices to God (Ex. xxviii. 38, xxx. 35, xxxvi. 6; I Sam. xxi. 5; Num. xviii. 17, 32; Lev. x. 10; Zech. xiv. 20), and whatever is used in worshiping in the sanctuary (Ex. xxviii. 2 et seq.; xxx. 25, 35). These things are not holy in themselves, but "holy unto the Lord" (Ex. xxviii. 36, xxx. 37; Lev. xix. 8, xxiii. 20; and elsewhere); that is, their relation to the divinity renders them holy; and in accordance with their more or less close external or internal relationship to God and His dwelling-place they are differentiated in their degree of holiness, as "holy," or "holy of holies" (Ex. xxvi. 33; xxx. 10, 29, 36; Lev. xvi. 33; and elsewhere).

(3) All persons "separated" from the rest of mankind to serve God or serve in the sanctuary of God. The priest is "holy unto God" (Lev. xxi. 6, 7), and Aaron, being separated from the rest of the Levites, is called "holy of holies" (I Chron. xxiii. 13 [A. V. incorrect]); so also are the Nazarite (Num. vi. 5) and the prophet (II Kings iv. 9).http://www.jewishenc...s/7815-holiness

I might disagree with a term or idea in this above definition, but the overall idea of holiness is shared in all the world religions. Is the Urantia Book holy? Does reading the Urantia Book and following its teachings elevate one's spirit while protecting it against evil? And if so, is the book itself holy, just as the Bible is described as holy or the Ark of the Covenant is described as holy? Please forgive me if I am being too vague in the way I ask these questions.

Edited by Howard509, 19 January 2013 - 03:10 AM.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin

Apparently not, Howard. Thank God we are forever released from venerating the "saints'" books, bones, fingernails and blood. The UB is two or three pounds of paper and ink, is that any holier than a dead tree, or a vat of dye?

Take a look at Paper 97:8. Melchizedek authored a Section called "Sacred and Profane History":

...All modern religions have seriously blundered in the attempt to put a miraculous interpretation on certain epochs of human history. While it is true that God has many times thrust a Father's hand of providential intervention into the stream of human affairs, it is a mistake to regard theologic dogmas and religious superstition as a supernatural sedimentation appearing by miraculous action in this stream of human history.... P.1071 - 3

Don't the teachings in this book become holy whenever they come alive in you?

No, the Urantia Book is not a fetish unless you personally turn it into one, which would be a huge mistake.

88:2.6 Words eventually became fetishes, more especially those which were regarded as God's words; in this way the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man.

I think we might modernize the term "holy" based on the Revelation - for it is the feeling of reverance and quickening of the spirit that becomes inspired by....well, anything. That which inspires is not holy itself but the feelings of and by the spirit are holy. The children of Father's kingdom should find such evidence of Him....well, everywhere. What is not "holy"? Only evil and sin are not holy, in that no thing is more or less than any other thing but all is the handiwork of Father and His Sons and the Spirit. God is not found IN anything but He can be found BY anything created or evolved in His universe. The whole place is holy.

A church leader, during a time of great trial and persecution for his church, was asked by many where to go and what to do to prepare for whatever might come. The wise leader said to ...."wherever you are, stand on holy ground and be righteous there." Our closeness to Father within makes everywhere we stand holy ground. Holy is a state of mind and does not reside in any relic or book. This whole spreading the gospel thing would be much easier if TUB were holy....we could just smack the pilgrim up side the head with 40 lbs. of Blue and voila! Very good question Howard. What is holy? The same, then, holds for the reading of the book. I think that most pilgrim's who read any 100 pages of text, will find some truth connections and may progress in spirit by acting on the truths discovered or reinforced thereby. But it is not the act of reading....it is the function of comprehension from the reading, and yet comprehension of a fact or a truth is not yet the experience of that truth, making the truth not yet true for the reader who comprehends.

The religious experience is a progression where discovery, comprehension, intent/motive, and act play a game of leap frog, over and over and over whereby we make mistakes and learn to "leap" better until something is experienced sufficiently for the pilgrim to confidently do the right thing for the right reasons. I know of no way to shortcut this growing and maturing process. But reading, studying, praying, and changing within this book or any book which strengthens faith and brings joy to the heart is always spiritually uplifting and protection against error/evil. But it does not end it except by experience in time....a lot of time.

But evil does not come from outside or even another to be protected from. Evil is but the error of the mind in motive, priority, thought, or act and its consequences are not escapable until the error is corrected by the mind in which it originates and resides. No one can put a spell on you nor take away the spirit, faith, and love in your mind and all things within soul are a sacred trust of the TA so that nothing of value is ever lost or threatened. This is why the Master says to follow Him and fear not. It is that walk that is holy in mind and in truth.

Or so I believe. We safely reside in a friendly universe. Love the 23rd Psalm. I will fear no evil.

Both in today's OPAD and now in this thread it has been said that evil is not good and evil is not holy. On the surface, I guess that sounds okay on the surface, but something bothers me deep down inside about those ideas. There is good in evil and there is holiness in evil if you consider that we are all evil. TUB defines evil as a partial realization or maladjustment to reality (67:1.4). All of us are maladjusted (which is why we need Adjusters) and all of our personalities are only partially realized. But, for certain, there is goodness and holiness in all of us because we are indwelt. Sometimes it's not possible to separate the two, evil and good; evil and holiness. It's about the wheat and the tares. The goal is to grow the wheat so strong that it doesn't get choked by the tares.

130:1.6 This is why our Father in heaven permits the good and the evil to go along together until the end of life, just as nature allows the wheat and the tares to grow side by side until the harvest.

Anyway, this does not have anything to do with the UB being holy or not holy. It's just a thought provoked by recent conversation that I wanted to express. Thanks.

Both in today's OPAD and now in this thread it has been said that evil is not good and evil is not holy.

Are you referring to this quote, Bonita?

...The omnipotence of Deity does not imply the power to do the nondoable. Within the time-space frame and from the intellectual reference point of mortal comprehension, even the infinite God cannot create square circles or produce evil that is inherently good.... P.1299 - 1

...The omnipotence of Deity does not imply the power to do the nondoable. Within the time-space frame and from the intellectual reference point of mortal comprehension, even the infinite God cannot create square circles or produce evil that is inherently good.... P.1299 - 1

No, I was talking about your comment on that quote, but that doesn't matter. The quote adds the modifier inherently. Inherent would be a permanent characteristic. As humans, only the Adjuster is inherently (permanently) good; which is why Jesus asked, "Why do you call me good?" The rest of us is essentially evil. The quote is saying that not even the infinite God can create evil (incomplete) humans as inherently good. We have to earn it. Only God is good. Am I making sense, 'cause I'm not sure?

There are truths in the u.b that when discovered could IMO have a relationship to holy or the whole. Holy is an interesting word. It's almost like it has double meaning. On one side it implies a relationship to the whole "god the mother" and on the other it implies sacredness.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

No, the Urantia Book is not a fetish unless you personally turn it into one, which would be a huge mistake.

88:2.6 Words eventually became fetishes, more especially those which were regarded as God's words; in this way the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man.

Does reading the Urantia Book and applying its teachings to one's life lead to holiness? Does following its teachings protect oneself against evil? And does the book itself have authority from God that something holy would have? For example, would you place your hand on the Urantia Book in a court of law and it would mean more than just any other book?

Edited by Howard509, 19 January 2013 - 09:24 PM.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin

(1104.6) 101:1.3 The divine spirit makes contact with mortal man, not by feelings or emotions, but in the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking. It is your thoughts, not your feelings, that lead you Godward. The divine nature may be perceived only with the eyes of the mind. But the mind that really discerns God, hears the indwelling Adjuster, is the pure mind. “Without holiness no man may see the Lord.” All such inner and spiritual communion is termed spiritual insight. Such religious experiences result from the impress made upon the mind of man by the combined operations of the Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth as they function amid and upon the ideas, ideals, insights, and spirit strivings of the evolving sons of God.

If without holiness, men will not see God, what is holiness, how do we attain it, and what relationship does the Urantia Book have to holiness?

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin

There are truths in the u.b that when discovered could IMO have a relationship to holy or the whole. Holy is an interesting word. It's almost like it has double meaning. On one side it implies a relationship to the whole "god the mother" and on the other it implies sacredness.

Is the Urantia Book a sacred text? If you were under oath in a court of law or being sworn in as an elected official, would you place your hand on the Urantia Book and would that mean more than any other book?

Edited by Howard509, 20 January 2013 - 12:42 AM.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin

Does reading the Urantia Book and applying its teachings to one's life lead to holiness?

That depends on how you interpret the teachings. There are some really bizarre interpretations out there that have nothing at all to do with holiness, yet those people are determined to try and live them out.

Does following its teachings protect oneself against evil?

It sounds like you think that evil is out there somewhere trying to get into you. That's a remnant of ghost fear. I have news for you, you are evil, you are imperfect, we all are. Therefore, it's not protection from evil that any of us need, it's openness to perfection. Willingness to be led from imperfection to perfection. We are meant to grow in spiritual insight in order to be able to see our own evil before we can give it less power over us. We fall in love with what is holy first, and that is already inside of us. We're supposed to embrace our own nuclear core, God within, and he is not found in a book. A book does not have the power of personality.

And does the book itself have authority from God that something holy would have? For example, would you place your hand on the Urantia Book in a court of law and it would mean more than just any other book?

No book has authority from God, not even the Bible. The only divine authority available to us comes from our genuine personal religious experiences with the living God. God does not live in a book.

Evil and imperfection are not the same. And shouldn't a distinction be made between doing evil and being evil? Maybe the topic deserves its own thread.

This is what Michael as Jesus taught:

...Make clear in your mind these different attitudes toward the Father and his universe. Never forget these laws of relation to the Father's will:

"Evil is the unconscious or unintended transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Evil is likewise the measure of the imperfectness of obedience to the Father's will.

"Sin is the conscious, knowing, and deliberate transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Sin is the measure of unwillingness to be divinely led and spiritually directed.

"Iniquity is the willful, determined, and persistent transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Iniquity is the measure of the continued rejection of the Father's loving plan of personality survival and the Sons' merciful ministry of salvation.... P.1660 - 2 (148:4)

Evil and imperfection are not the same. And shouldn't a distinction be made between doing evil and being evil? Maybe the topic deserves its own thread.

Sure they are. Certainly there are degrees of imperfection and from a universe perspective evil is only potential. All evolutionary creation is imperfect which is the origin of evil even though we are not entirely conscious of it. We all have pet evils and who of us have not looked back on our lives to recognize an evil imperfection that we were totally unaware of at the time, which is in itself proof of personality progression towards perfection. Evil is not conscious; sin is. Evil imperfection is simply the error of immaturity. We are all immature.

Jesus also said this:

148:6.11 Man suffers, first, from the accidents of time and the imperfections of the evil of an immature physical existence.

Also, there are these quotes:

130:4.11Error (evil) is the penalty of imperfection. The qualities of imperfection or facts of misadaptation are disclosed on the material level by critical observation and by scientific analysis; on the moral level, by human experience. The presence of evil constitutes proof of the inaccuracies of mind and the immaturity of the evolving self. Evil is, therefore, also a measure of imperfection in universe interpretation. The possibility of making mistakes is inherent in the acquisition of wisdom, the scheme of progressing from the partial and temporal to the complete and eternal, from the relative and imperfect to the final and perfected. Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man’s ascending universe path to Paradise perfection. Error (evil) is not an actual universe quality; it is simply the observation of a relativity in the relatedness of the imperfection of the incomplete finite to the ascending levels of the Supreme and Ultimate.

130:4.13Evil is a relativity concept. It arises out of the observation of the imperfections which appear in the shadow cast by a finite universe of things and beings as such a cosmos obscures the living light of the universal expression of the eternal realities of the Infinite One.

105:6.4 Thus arises imperfection in the evolutionary creations. And this is the origin of potential evil. Misadaptation, disharmony, and conflict, all these things are inherent in evolutionary growth, from physical universes to personal creatures.

148:4.6 By nature, before the rebirth of the spirit, mortal man is subject to inherent evil tendencies, but such natural imperfections of behavior are neither sin nor iniquity. Mortal man is just beginning his long ascent to the perfection of the Father in Paradise. To be imperfect or partial in natural endowment is not sinful. Man is indeed subject to evil, but he is in no sense the child of the evil one unless he has knowingly and deliberately chosen the paths of sin and the life of iniquity. Evil is inherent in the natural order of this world, but sin is an attitude of conscious rebellion which was brought to this world by those who fell from spiritual light into gross darkness.

Bonita says above: "Both in today's OPAD and now in this thread it has been said that evil is not good and evil is not holy. On the surface, I guess that sounds okay on the surface, but something bothers me deep down inside about those ideas. There is good in evil and there is holiness in evil if you consider that we are all evil. TUB defines evil as a partial realization or maladjustment to reality (67:1.4)."

This was a very hard concept for me early on, as the Revelation flip flops some terms and definitions learned by the bible as a child - that evil is worse than sin, a focused and personalized exaggeration of sin itself. But this is not so. Evil is but error. Normal, expected, inherent to the inexperienced children of time and space. Evil is not evil by the definitions provided (which make perfect sense once the old prejudice of prior understanding is relinguished). The 23rd Psalm I quoted...though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I will fear no evil....makes far more sense now than it did back when I learned to recite it.....fear not your mistakes for Father is with you. Not to be fearless in the face of any other or enemy....but fear not the errors we are certain to make.

In this light, I would say that evil is good....as it is the process provided for free will within time to transcend itself by experience. Practice makes perfect, eh? On many levels. I once learned to play music (my poor teachers). Every year of progress showed fewer and fewer errors in the performance....except for this - my dang teachers kept giving me harder and harder stuff to learn so I was not making fewer errors, just different and more complex ones. This trail of mistakes eventually led to my concert performance of double and even triple tongued trombone siren's call in ragtime, jazz, and dixie land blues (in which "mistakes" are but interpretative jamming in relationship to other musicians swinging with you).

I find it interesting that Jesus was without sin....but I don't remember it said He did not error in mind or choice.....but that He was like us in all ways prior to the "realization".

There can be no free will without error. Even a consecrated free will is REQUIRED to error to learn to distinguish the superior from the inferior choices from which to choose. The trick is to progress by and through error/evil into newer and greater choices revealed by that experience. We are not to embrace our errors but we are not to fear them either. It is the way....the only way home.

Sure they are. Certainly there are degrees of imperfection and from a universe perspective evil is only potential. All evolutionary creation is imperfect which is the origin of evil even though we are not entirely conscious of it. We all have pet evils and who of us have not looked back on our lives to recognize an evil imperfection that we were totally unaware of at the time, which is in itself proof of personality progression towards perfection. Evil is not conscious; sin is. Evil imperfection is simply the error of immaturity. We are all immature.

Jesus also said this:

148:6.11 Man suffers, first, from the accidents of time and the imperfections of the evil of an immature physical existence.

Also, there are these quotes:

130:4.11Error (evil) is the penalty of imperfection. The qualities of imperfection or facts of misadaptation are disclosed on the material level by critical observation and by scientific analysis; on the moral level, by human experience. The presence of evil constitutes proof of the inaccuracies of mind and the immaturity of the evolving self. Evil is, therefore, also a measure of imperfection in universe interpretation. The possibility of making mistakes is inherent in the acquisition of wisdom, the scheme of progressing from the partial and temporal to the complete and eternal, from the relative and imperfect to the final and perfected. Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man’s ascending universe path to Paradise perfection. Error (evil) is not an actual universe quality; it is simply the observation of a relativity in the relatedness of the imperfection of the incomplete finite to the ascending levels of the Supreme and Ultimate.

130:4.13Evil is a relativity concept. It arises out of the observation of the imperfections which appear in the shadow cast by a finite universe of things and beings as such a cosmos obscures the living light of the universal expression of the eternal realities of the Infinite One.

105:6.4 Thus arises imperfection in the evolutionary creations. And this is the origin of potential evil. Misadaptation, disharmony, and conflict, all these things are inherent in evolutionary growth, from physical universes to personal creatures.

148:4.6 By nature, before the rebirth of the spirit, mortal man is subject to inherent evil tendencies, but such natural imperfections of behavior are neither sin nor iniquity. Mortal man is just beginning his long ascent to the perfection of the Father in Paradise. To be imperfect or partial in natural endowment is not sinful. Man is indeed subject to evil, but he is in no sense the child of the evil one unless he has knowingly and deliberately chosen the paths of sin and the life of iniquity. Evil is inherent in the natural order of this world, but sin is an attitude of conscious rebellion which was brought to this world by those who fell from spiritual light into gross darkness.

148:5.3 The imperfections and handicaps of evil are inherent; . . .

None of that, and nowhere in the UB do the authors declare we ARE evil.

I am puzzled by this concept of "being" evil. It must have a biblical foundation...."for all have sinned and fall short" - the "fallen" mankind syndrome. I don't think any"thing" or any"one" is or can be evil for evil is but error, one must then be saying that some"things" and/or some"ones" were created as or by mistake....either the Father's or the Sons'. Silly.

Evil is but an intention or motive that is immature or an act that is either self serving or other serving but the choice made was not the superior one available. Many do cling to their favorite errors of choice due to some payoff to ego and we keeping playing the C flat instead of the B on the keyboard of note choices. Our progress in spirit requires this process in time and the only evil lies within the choosing. And the results of evil are not personal punishment but a universal law of response....the universe responds to each and all choices made which are worthy and ignores all others which results are to and for the mind in error to learn the better way thereby. Evil either results in nothingness or it leads to everythingness.....our choice, eh?

This got me thinking about the difference between evil and imperfection. Evil connotes personality and intent, time and space. Imperfection can be either personal or impersonal, but it's about achievement, a finite and/or an eternal ideal. Those are big differences.

None of that, and nowhere in the UB do the authors declare we ARE evil.

No, but they say we are imperfect, immature and ignorant which is the same thing. They also say that evil is inherent in the natural order of this world, which we are part of. But you forget that we are of a dual nature. Not all of our nature is imperfect. We're both.

2:2.7 Human limitations, potential evil, are not a part of the divine nature, but mortal experience with evil and all man’s relations thereto are most certainly a part of God’s ever-expanding self-realization in the children of time — creatures of moral responsibility who have been created or evolved by every Creator Son going out from Paradise.

Every single one of us has limitations, we're all unfinished, which makes all of us potentially evil. All the decisions we make are based on incomplete, imperfect knowledge and are therefore subject to being evil, in error and less than perfect. Maybe Jesus, prior to his baptism, never made a single mistake, but I don't know of anyone else who doesn't. Even honest mistakes are evil. But evil is not a bad thing. It is a very necessary thing. It's part of growing up. It is an inevitability because imperfection is an inherent part of evolution. It's the definition of evolution: imperfection progressing towards perfection.

We all have mistaken judgment, some of us most of the time, especially me. Mistaken judgment is evil, there's no way around it. However, I may not be aware that my judgment is mistaken. Therefore, I am not aware of my own evil. Not until I've matured and made to realize that my judgment is in error am I held accountable. Heck, I just made a error in judgment the other day by saying something to someone that I shouldn't have. I didn't realize it at the time nor did I comprehend the consequences until it happened. It was evil. I didn't know it before I did it, but I certainly realize it now. I repented. It's over. I learned, I'm growing. This happens constantly, and if it stops happening then the soul isn't growing.

3:5.15 The possibility of mistaken judgment (evil) becomes sin only when the human will consciously endorses and knowingly embraces a deliberate immoral judgment.

I realize that no one likes the word evil. It's no wonder that TUB uses so many other words to explain it. We've attached morality to evil and morality is only superanimal. It is the first step of the realization between evil and holiness, the topic of this thread. How can you become holy if you're not evolving from something? And that something is evil, or if you don't like that word, then use immaturity or imperfection, or ignorance, or error, or mistaken judgment, or any other word that means something less than perfect.

3:5.13 Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

Does reading the Urantia Book and following its teachings protect one from the influence of the devil? Does it help protect oneself from sin? Another important question is whether you'd be offended by people burning the Urantia Book, just as a Christian might be offended by the burning of the Bible. And would you swear on the Urantia Book in a court of law?

If the Urantia Book is what it claims to be, then it is a "holy" or "sacred" text, based on the fact that it contains the precious words of Jesus on how we may attain eternal life.

If without holiness, men will not see God, what is holiness, how do we attain it, and what relationship does the Urantia Book have to holiness? It might seem like I am just being a bother and I am sorry for that but holiness must be pretty darn important if we cannot see God without it.

Edited by Howard509, 20 January 2013 - 11:53 AM.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin